All I Want For Christmas Is A Few Off Weeks
There is an economics principle called the
law of diminishing returns. It states that adding more of a single factor while
everything else stays constant will yield lower returns. Basically, when you
keep adding one item repeatedly, the quality and/or satisfaction of the
finished product is reduced.
I first discovered this truth when Dairy Queen introduced their Blizzards line
of treats years ago. I thought their Butterfingers Blizzard was the greatest
creation since indoor plumbing, so within the next day or so I had another.
This went on throughout the course of a summer. By the time fall came around, I
didn't enjoy Butterfingers Blizzards anymore. Why? The product hadn't changed.
I still enjoyed ice cream and I still enjoyed Butterfingers candy bars. The law
of diminishing returns had come into effect. After consuming so much of the
same product, my level of satisfaction had decreased. I no longer believed they
held the same value they once held. As a result, I stopped eating those
Blizzards as frequently.
The same thing has happened to NASCAR. I love racing and have followed the
NASCAR version of it for parts of five decades now. However, what once gave me
(and a lot of others) so much pleasure in a 29 to 31 race season has lost a lot
of its luster as we consume it for 36 weekends a year. Of course it doesn't
help that so much of the product is presented to us on the same type of tracks;
those mile and a half tri-ovals we disdain. By reducing the number of races on
its schedule, NASCAR could make their product more appealing to consumers, more
valuable to drivers and less expensive to teams, thus creating a better
value.
I realize of course, this will probably never happen and some might think I'm
crazy but listen to my logic. The NASCAR Winston/Nextel/Sprint Cup schedule
didn't have 36 races until the 2001 season. For the two seasons prior to that,
there were 34 races and 33 in 1998. There were 32 races in 1997 and 31 in the
'94, '95 and '96 campaigns. We had 30 races in 1993 and prior to that we
seven consecutive 29 race seasons. For those of you old enough to remember the
days of Earnhardt, Wallace and Darrell Waltrip, do you remember feeling
unsatisfied in those days? How many races have you seen in the last few years
that will be talked about a decade or more from now?
Here's how NASCAR can help themselves and their consumers. Limit the season to
32 races per year. Again, with the France owned International Speedway
Corporation controlling 12 tracks, I know it's not feasible but here's what it
does. It makes each race worth more in the championship hunt particularly if
the Chase or some form of it is going to be permanent. We've eliminated four
opportunities for drivers to earn wins and clinch a Chase position. Throw in a
bad day on pit road or a wreck resulting in a poor finish and with fewer
opportunities to make up for a bad day, don't you think some drivers and owners
will feel tension? The last ten races of this season were nothing compared to
what they would feel.
Fewer races mean each one is worth more to the track and the fans who attend.
If I'm an average, blue collar fan within a six hour drive to Dover or Pocono,
I probably have to decide which of the four races between those two tracks I
can afford to attend. If those tracks have just two races between them, my
decision just got a bit easier. The same hold true if I'm in the southeast,
deciding between Charlotte and Atlanta.
What if tracks don't want to give up races? Of course no owner (ISC or Bruton Smith) want to do that so you make the track earn
their event. Imagine that! Eliminate the four events that draw the lowest
percentage of fans in the previous season, based on their available seating. It
has to be based on a percentage because obviously some tracks have less
seating. It can't be based on number of tickets sold. It's based on the
percentage of seats sold. Don't you think you'd see some tracks offer some
incredible deals on tickets and the fan experience? I'll bet you that's when
the track operators will finally find a way to convince the area hotels to drop
their outrageous room rates for race weekends. They'd do everything short of
rolling out the red carpet for fans in their attempt to entice us to their
tracks.
How can a track earn back a race date? Let the season's champion decide which
track to add to or keep in the upcoming year's schedule. Why not? What's wrong
with adding one more plum to the spoils of being the top dog? Using this season
as an example, we all know attendance at Kentucky was abysmal, as was the racing
surface. If they want to retain a race, I'll bet you a race ticket, they'll
quickly find out how to fix those bumps on the front stretch. Of course
some will wonder what would happen to a track if it didn't or couldn't get back
one of its lost races. First, they could try to find somebody from the
Rockingham, North Wilkesboro or Nashville areas and see if those people care.
After that, they can push to keep or add the Xfinity
and/or Camping World Truck Series, improving their facility in the process.
Think of the costs and time saved to teams. It's well known that NASCAR is
implementing a new rules package for 2015. They claim they're doing it in part,
to save costs. Add up the savings if teams can eliminate four weeks of hauling
cars across the country, flying crews in and out of towns, paying for hotels,
rental cars and all the other expenses incurred on a race weekend. Now multiply
that by 43 teams and you see some substantial savings.
At the same time, it makes sponsorships more valuable. There are team owners
and representatives chasing potential sponsors this very day, trying to
convince these companies why they should sink their advertising budgets in
NASCAR. Under this scenario, they don't have to ask for as much money because
they don't need to spend as much. Meanwhile, as each race would become more
valuable, the season wouldn't be so saturated, more fans are in the stands and
ratings would certainly increase. With a net result of more eyes on the sport
(isn't that everyone's goal?) and more at stake each week, how attractive does
a sponsorship become?
I realize this isn't a perfect plan but if NASCAR truly had the sport's best
interests at heart, they'd consider this or some variation of it. This isn't a
complete plan either. There are different aspects that could be tweaked such as
rotating tracks, adding Iowa one year in exchange for a Kansas date for
instance. Both of those tracks are ISC owned by the way, so that part is very
doable. I'd be interested in hearing what others have to offer as well as what
you think of this proposal. In the meantime, I'm off. I just developed a taste
for a Butterfingers Blizzard...but just one.